Category Archives: Media

Media

Carleton University Speech

Posted on by
Reply

It’s good to be back in Ottawa again, and I’m pleased to be part of this important conference. The students and staff from The Carleton Human Rights Society and The Womyn’s Centre, and others, organized it. Those others include The Pauline Jewett Institute for Women’s and Gender Studies. They include the Department of Anthropology and Sociology, and the Department of Law and Legal Studies. And also the Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies. Please join me in thanking them for all they have done. 

Then there are the sponsors of the conference. Thanks to Ottawa Public Interest Research Group Carleton, The Rideau River Residence Association, The Graduate Students’ Association, The Carleton Disability Awareness Centre, and the other clubs and departments who helped out.

Wow. Carleton certainly has much to boast about. And, I’m told their dominatrix courses are first rate. Here’s a riddle for you. What do a dominatrix and a woman professor at Carleton have in common? Answer. They both give you marks.

I have been to Ottawa before. I have been to Ottawa several times to fight the laws against the sex trade. In 1994 I was charged with running a bawdy house, The Bondage Bungalow. The charges were thrown out of court in 1995. The Crown won their 1996 appeal and in 1997 I was at the Supreme Court, which threw out my appeal. We went to trial in 1998. I was convicted, but to this day cannot tell you why. I lost my appeal in Ontario in 1999. That decision was legendary for how bad it was. In 2000 the Supreme Court in Ottawa refused to grant leave to appeal. Of course during and before all that I was in court many other times, and in jail, all under the old laws, which were finally struck down as unconstitutional. And remember, most of what happens is not publicized. I wrote a book about that called Dominatrix on Trial.

After the hearings and decisions in Toronto on the constitutional case from 2007 to 2012, I was back in Ottawa again in June 2013 for the hearing day for the final appeals in Bedford Versus Canada, the case that struck down the old laws against prostitution once and for all. You probably remember the pictures of demonstrations by sex workers and those against sex work in front of the court. Reporters told me they had never seen anything like it at the Supreme Court. I came to Ottawa again in December 2013, when the decision was released. It was a day that made headlines around the world – just like in 2010. I came to Ottawa yet again, in September 2014, to testify about the proposed new law, Bill C-36, at the Senate. I got thrown out for not shutting up. In November 2014 I came to to Ottawa again, to the University of Ottawa campus to speak to the Ontario Civil Liberties Association, who made me the recipient of their award for 2014. They didn’t throw me out.

And now I’m here again, this time at Carleton, but what a difference. Instead of me getting thrown out the government got thrown out; just under 2 years after their prostitution laws were thrown out. The new law, Bill C-36 is doomed one way or the other. And, at long last, we may finally have a fair and open discussion in this country about the sex trade, and about who decides what, before any policies are adopted. 

But before I tell you what I think should be allowed and not allowed, I want to speak to you about why there is a sex trade and what it means in the real world.

I’d like to begin by talking about the motivations of sex trade participants and activists, for and against. Why motivation? Well, it explains so much.

Let’s start with the clients, and here I will focus on heterosexual men paying women. There are of course several reasons why men pay women for sex acts, whatever that means. Let’s take married men. After a while most of them crave some variety. They see women on television and the Internet, at work and on the street or when they socialize with friends. They are attracted to some of these. They remember what it was like at the beginning of their relationships, and miss that excitement. They miss being physical with a woman without knowing her baggage. The then and there. And if the woman is discreet, like a sex worker, he can confide in her the way he can’t confide in his wife or girlfriend. He can tell her the kinky things he wants to do but is afraid, often with good reasons, to tell his partner. It’s a lot of pressure to keep deeply felt desires secret, let alone have them fulfilled. It may be something as simple as having sex without worrying about satisfying his partner or being pressured about commitment.

Then there are clients who have no partners. They may be handicapped. They may be shy. They may be too poor to marry. They may be separated or divorced. Or, they may simply not want to live with a woman or have a steady girlfriend. A man who has sex with a sex worker once a month is as sexually active as many couples married for several years, at least those couples that even stay together for several years.

So, our clients have a piece in the puzzle of their lives available to them. Many have told me that knowing they were going to have a session with me once a month or whatever seemed to make the rest of their lives much better. It was a wonderful secret to have. And keeping it secret protected them from ridicule or damage to their relationships with their partners, if they had one, or their families. It is unfortunate that we have to live secretly so often in what we say and do, but that is reality.

Now, on to the motivations of the sex trade worker. Well, why does anyone do anything? Usually it’s because they need an income, or more income. How many women want to clean toilets for low pay or want to work in a factory for low pay? How many want to serve in the armed forces and get sexually harassed, and persecuted if they complain about it? The point is that few people would do their jobs for free, even if they had big savings. And they often choose to follow the money.

Sex workers can make good money. You may only need a few hours a month for the administrative parts of the job and seeing a client once a week might provide enough income to get by. It may not be the only thing you do for money, or the only thing you do. Some students work their way through university, and some of them see only one client or a few. Some have sugar daddies. They can work around their class schedules and so forth. Other sex workers work for agencies. Others are in business for themselves.

Women want to be desired and pursued. Being paid for their time and attention is very flattering to some. Some women enjoy sex with multiple partners. I could go on with examples of why women may be attracted to sex work. But at the bottom of it is money. If the government wanted to reduce sex work among those less inclined to it the best way is to invest in higher welfare for single mothers and in daycare centres, and in collecting court ordered payments from dead-beat dads.

Now, how does one go about being a sex worker in a safe setting? Well, for one, have a steady location, with others on the premises who can act as security. When I had my houses I had a baby monitor hidden in the room with my security employee in another room who was on the alert when I had clients. The clients never knew, although they were told security was on the premises. You can hire expertise about advertising for such clientele as you wish on the Internet and elsewhere. You can also join an agency where these services are shared. And of course you can meet men in bars and hotels, among other places, aside from the streets. I won’t go into any more details now, but I think you get the idea.

Now get this. From time to time the law may, repeat may, be a minor factor, repeat minor factor, in what you choose to do. The old laws were rarely enforced, the new law almost never has been and is going the way of the dodo one way or the other. The authorities only have the resources to concentrate on clear cases of human trafficking and underage sex workers and clear violence against women that comes to their attention. Even if the new law was upheld and vigorously enforced, the trade would just go further underground, and its worst aspects would proliferate.

Prior to 2010 the prostitution laws were a mess. The sale of sex was legal, as was its purchase. But if it was done from the same location repeatedly, or if someone earned an income helping a sex worker, or if people communicated for the purpose of paid sex, they were breaking the law. Not only that, but sex acts were not listed. For example, if I tied up and whipped a client, and I have done plenty of that, especially to professors, under what circumstances is it a sex act? I think you get the idea. Not only that, but the laws themselves endangered people engaged in a legal activity – paid sex. Professor Alan Young organized and led a constitutional challenge to the prostitution laws. I was one of the 3 plaintiffs. Val Scott and Amy Lebovitch were the others.

In 2010, after almost 2 years of hearings and one year of deliberation, Judge Susan Himel, issued a 131 page decision. I quote from my book what she said. “She found that our application was right. The laws against communicating for the purposes of prostitution, living off the avails of prostitution, and keeping a common bawdy house were unconstitutional for a number of reasons. For one thing, they did not achieve their objectives but in fact worked in the opposite direction. She agreed that the laws prevented prostitutes from protecting themselves, and that the laws protected the perpetrators of violence against women more than they inhibited such violence. She agreed that indoor prostitution was safer than street prostitution. She agreed that the current prostitution laws were only minimally enforced. She agreed that the laws were too broad, leading to unelected officials distinguishing right from wrong. She agreed that striking down the laws would not lead to a dramatic increase in prostitution. She pointed out that numerous other laws are already on the books to combat the worst aspects of the sex trade.” So, the judge was saying the laws themselves were illegal.

The government fought our application. They spared no expense. They appealed when there were no grounds to appeal. They offered crap as evidence and arguments. Above all they wanted the issue to go away as long as possible. They did not want to be in the position of having to tell women when and under what conditions they could engage in sex acts. They did not want to define what are and what are not sex acts. They knew that women were being abused and killed because of the laws. They knew from the evidence in our case. But they also knew from the Pickton Inquiry, where the judge said the laws were much of the cause. They knew because of the epidemic of missing and murdered Aboriginal women into which they refused to call an inquiry. They knew but they put themselves first and kicked the can down the road. They lost right down the line and the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for any new laws that might come along.

The government, as we predicted, brought in a variant of the so-called Nordic model, which penalizes purchasers of sex acts and those such as advertisers who assist sex trade workers with their business, but does not charge those selling sex. As predicted the new law was not constitutional in the view of independent legal experts. Professor Young, in his testimony before the Senate annihilated the law’s constitutionality. The witnesses appearing in support of C-36 gave the same crap that was rejected by the courts. Conservative commentators prostituted themselves to support the bill. Overpaid and under-worked trained seals. C-36 replicated the flaws of the old laws and was no less unconstitutional.

So, why did the Harper government bring in Bill C-36? Why did they spend endless dollars on lawyers, biased witnesses and other lackeys to appeal the findings of the trial that struck down the prostitution laws, or to defend the shameful Bill C-36? The answer is that they were pandering. Religious Christians and others did not want women to have the freedoms they now  have. These same donors to Mr. Harper and his party fought access to abortion that we now have. They fought against same sex marriage.
Mr. Harper pandered to these types of people when he fought court rulings on safe-site injections, medical marijuana and mandatory minimum sentences. He said he was being tough on crime. He lied. 

For example, if Mr. Harper was really interested in protecting women, as he claimed, he would have at least spoken out against wife beaters, dead-beat dads, lack of daycare or affordable housing, high tuition for women students from non-privileged backgrounds or the shortage of women’s shelters or shelters who accept family pets so the wife-beaters don’t use the pets as hostages. On these matters, and on matters like prison overcrowding and the wrongly convicted, or backlogged courts, or the cost of legal representation, he was silent. He talked about the rights of victims. What about the victims I just mentioned. Again, pandering to a base of donors and a base of voters. It was no different with the sex trade. He acted like he was promoting more missing women. No wonder he refused to call the inquiry into missing aboriginal women. The courts had already told him that the laws he was advocating were part of the cause. And then, with C-36, he doubled down. Under Mr. Harper human trafficking has become rampant. Tough on crime? Please. 

He and his so-called justice minister were even caught up in their own lies. Mr. MacKay and his officials were testifying in support of C-36. When he and his officials were asked about the constitutionality of C-36 being questioned extensively by reputable legal experts, they said there was no need to refer the law to the courts. Then, within minutes, when asked what acts were sex acts under the law, they said the courts would have to decide.

I have spoken elsewhere about Mr. MacKay’s record regarding sexual and minority harassment in the armed forces when he was minister. Mr. MacKay is a national disgrace, as is Rob Nicholson his predecessor as justice minister. I have spoken about him before as well. They have got part of the fate they deserved when their party was humiliated in the election. But enough about them. 

Now that Mr. Harper and his lackeys are out of office I believe this new Parliament can do better. They can tell Canadians to take their moral judgements and shove them. Instead, crack down on corporate crime. Crack down on tax evasion. Crack down on those traffic in undocumented foreign women as nannies or men as farm workers. Crack down on terrorists. Crack down on polluters. And like I said before, have the authorities help women who are forced to do what they do or stay where they are, and not on women who are are acting freely. Stay out of the private sex lives of consenting adults. Show some courage on that issue. The people will approve. Not all of them – but enough.

Tomorrow the new Parliament will meet for the first time and in 2 days the Throne Speech will be delivered. We may hear more of the new government’s pending decisions on what to do about the sex trade. They have already committed to repeal or amend C-36. I think the federal government is right if it calls for a task force report before telling Canadians under what circumstances they may be paid for sex acts. And the Supreme court also said that for any new law to be legal it must not be vague. It must tell me, as a sex worker, as a dominatrix, and as a woman, what I may or may not do in the privacy of my bedroom. I believe they must begin by setting a time-line for the repeal of Bill C-36, and call for its non-enforcement until that happens.

In other countries liberalization of the laws restricting the sex trade has been a success. In every area of society and the economy laws are broken and things happen underground, and the sex trade is no exception.  Yet, for their own purposes, governments or journalists cherry-pick the so-called evidence. The most blatant and frightening examples in the debate on C-36 were when Margaret Wente and Barbara Kay, two somewhat prominent conservative journalists, ignored even mentioning judge Himel’s exhaustive review of court tested evidence about other countries and cited a recent study each, neither of which were court tested, and both of which have been discredited, to support C-36. Their lack of integrity in debating this issue is frightening. They have sunk to the level of hate groups on the Internet. Fortunately both of them are old and I don’t think anyone takes them seriously any more, if they ever did, or if they have even heard of them.

But even more of a danger than lies and funded propaganda, is morality. We must never allow policies to be driven by morality – as opposed to the considerations of freedom, safety and privacy. That’s the Canada I want.

In the sex trade that means I can operate a brothel or dungeon in full view and with full protection of the law. It means that I can’t force anyone to enter or stay in the business against their will. It means I obey the labour laws obeyed by a restaurant or factory. It means I pay taxes. It means I do not assault anyone. It means my employees do nothing they are not comfortable with. It means my customers are free from harassment and their privacy is protected. It means I can advertise my services. It means that any restrictions on where I locate and where I advertise and who I hire are the same as, say, any other adult entertainment facility. It means that people who have a moral objection to my line of work can go to Hell. These are the same people, all too often, who objected to birth control, equal pay for women, homosexual relations, same sex marriage, interracial marriage and more. These are also the same people who in one breath condemn sex for sale and within hours buy it. If you want to know who is on that list, a good guide is to look at who is most sanctimonious.

I hope historians and other researchers will tell the stories of those who, for decades, fought for the freedoms and protections that sex workers and members of the LGBT community have been and are now in the process of achieving. The names that make the media are the tips of icebergs. Great changes take time, money, effort, perseverance, savvy and many good people to come about. 

As you hear the presentations over the next day or so and read the materials you are being provided, you will see that some things are getting better in Canada, and you will find out more about how and why that has come to pass, and share your findings. We are obviously at a landmark time in deciding the most crucial questions on issues relating to the sex trade.

But in my view the most crucial question should be asked the most often. The question is 2 words. It is the question at the heart of almost every level of almost every issue. Here are the 2 words. 

“Who decides?”

I want to thank you again for having this important conference and for inviting me to speak here tonight. 

Message From Terri-Jean Bedford

Posted on by
Reply

I am the Bedford in Bedford Versus Canada, where Canada’s prostitution laws were struck down. Many have been in touch to ask for my reaction to the results of the recent federal election. I have as a result prepared the following remarks for activists and others. I confine my remarks to how the new government should proceed to change the federal legislation, Bill C-36, now in place to regulate the “sex trade”.

The landscape for the future of Bill C-36 has changed. The political party supporting Bill C-36 was rejected by voters. The party that voted against C-36 was elected. The new prime minister has pledged to listen, and to make evidence based decisions, instead of imposing laws which reflect some specific morality.

The new Parliament must withdraw C-36. Nothing should be passed in its place, but if anything is it should promote the safety and dignity of sex trade workers, and allow them to protect themselves. Morality based considerations should have no place in the discussions where consenting adults are concerned.

To that end there should be no doubt about who at what age is entitled to do what in private, for money or not. Aid for those wishing to exit the trade should be available. It could be made available by enhancing various federal programs. Human trafficking or forced entry into the sex trade should be stopped and can be enforced via laws not specific to the sex trade. At the same time any harassment of consenting adults buying or selling sex acts should be stopped. The government has no business interfering in the sex lives of consenting adults.

A national deliberation on how these goals can be achieved should occur. This would clear away the myths, selective or unverified evidence, and stories that cloud proper discussions.

So it is understandable that time will be required, if something like a round table or public inquiry or further parliamentary hearings occur.

That requirement for time does not diminish our astounding victories these last few years. Let us remain active in the national debate to come, and move beyond the bumps in the road that may remain. We owe that to those who fought for our cause before we did and when we did. The cause of advocating for sex trade workers is now in good hands and, if I am able to, I will continue to help when asked.

Terri-Jean Bedford

Dominatrix Responds to Kathleen Wynne

Posted on by
Reply

Dear Premier Wynne:

Today is a sad day in Ontario. It is disappointing that you and Attorney General Meilleur have made this assessment, and beyond regretful that you have done so without any consultation with the people most affected by this flawed piece of legislation. Sex work activists and allies have continuously attempted to arrange meetings with you and your staff, and have been repeatedly rebuffed. This is not merely discourteous, but downright insulting.

I am not a legal scholar, nor am I as educated as the lawyers who have spoken out on this issue. However, I know that when 200+ lawyers and legal experts sign a letter concerning the potential unconstitutionality of these laws, I can have faith that they know what they are talking about. Yet, Ms. Meilleur states there is “no clear unconstitutionality” in these laws, as if that were a legal certainty? The only thing certain about these laws is that they are certain to put sex workers in danger.

Premier Wynne, when you claim there is “no clear unconstitutionality” in these laws, even a layperson such as I can read between the lines. Just because something is not clearly unconstitutional does not mean that it is, indeed, constitutional. In fact, one of the very reasons I and my colleagues have requested a legal reference is because the laws are so unclear.

Sadly, any politician who blindly enforces an unclear law is engaging in poor public policy. Mark my words, this is not over – the laws will be contested in the highest courts in the land, and they will fall, just as the last laws did. Premier Wynne, you could have shown the courage to bring this issue to the courts, to seek clarity and help sex workers stay safe. Instead, you will now be the one to argue for the right of the state to control the behaviours of consenting adults, just as your predecessor Dalton McGuinty did. Ms. Meilleur will have to stand up in court and defend Harper’s laws, and argue for their constitutionality, just as her predecessors Chris Bentley and John Gerretsen did. But along the way, sex workers across the country will be victimized, violated, and violently harmed because of these laws.

Your refusal to meet with any sex workers before forming your opinion is insulting. Your refusal to refer these laws to the courts, when you yourself spoke of your “grave concern” regarding the effect of these laws, is disappointing. We expected better of you, and apart from a few well-scripted platitudes, you have let us down. Today is indeed a sad day in Ontario.

A Message From Terri-Jean Bedford

Posted on by
Reply

I want to congratulate and express my profound gratitude to sex workers and others across Canada for making any significant implementation of Bill C-36 unlikely. We have fought long and hard to expose the old laws as unfair, and they were finally invalidated.

It is obvious now that any significant attempts to enforce Bill C-36 will fail. Major police forces and premiers do not want to enforce the legislation. Any attempts at implementation will cause controversy and only speed the end of such attempts. The legal invalidation will follow in time.

I want in this message to give special thanks to some of those who have fought long and hard these last months. Val Scott, as always, has been at the forefront in every respect. Val will be seen in Canadian history as a major bringer of change. Amy Lebovitch, whose participation in the constitutional challenge was so critical, and who is now the Executive Director of the Sex Professionals of Canada, is owed the gratitude of the country. Nikki, former Executive Director of that organization, has in recent years devoted her amazing abilities and energy to the fight. I also want to mention some of those those who have been at the forefront these last months: Jean McDonald, Alice Klein, Alan Young, Katrina Pacey, Andrea Houston, Richard Elliott, Brenda Cossman. There are so many others. 

I thank you all. My close supporters thank you. I know that the Canada of today and tomorrow have every reason to thank you. And I would like to think that the many who have fought the old laws in the past, and suffered from them, are adding their thanks too. Well done my friends.

Prostitution Law Mr. Harper’s unenforceable act

Posted on by
Reply

Globe and Mail Lead Editorial
December 12, 2014

Prostitution Law
Mr. Harper’s unenforceable act

Canada’s new anti-prostitution law came into effect this week, but it’s doubtful anyone involved with the so-called “oldest profession” much noticed.

Citing concerns over constitutionality, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne says her province will not rigorously pursue prosecutions under the new law, which among other things criminalizes advertising sexual services and soliciting near schools, parks and houses of worship.

“I am left with grave concern that the so-called Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act will protect neither ‘exploited persons’ nor ‘communities’,” said Premier Wynne.

British Columbia Premier Christy Clark expressed similar intentions in a meeting with the Globe’s editorial board this week when she said she supports the Vancouver Police Department’s decision not to make the law a priority.

Now come reports that the Montreal police service’s vice unit is in no particular hurry to enforce the law either. Like police in Vancouver, they will focus their efforts on sex worker safety.

So after Ottawa disregarded initial objections from many experts over its proposed bill, then ignored the possibility the legislation would swiftly be struck down in court, it is now confronted by the reality the law is unlikely to be enforced in the places where the sex trade does its briskest business.

Quite the trifecta.

When the Supreme Court invalidated the core provisions of this country’s out-dated prostitution law in late 2013, the government had an opportunity to address the human tragedies caused by prostitution.

Instead, we are left with a text devoid of authority.

This government has a history of selectively heeding advice on matters of criminal justice and policing, and the Globe’s reporting has also uncovered a worrying pattern of presenting sub-standard, error-ridden legislation to Parliament.

Evidence is mounting, then, of a surprisingly slipshod approach to what is claimed to be a core priority.

As a result, the government finds itself confronted by a vexing question that is entirely of its own making. When does a law cease being a law?

Maybe it’s when nobody feels obligated to submit to it.

OCLA 2014 Acceptance speech

Posted on by
1

I see some former clients in the audience. How was today’s caucus meeting? It’s good to be back in Ottawa. Maybe this time I won’t get thrown out. But in case I do, I want to first thank the Ontario Civil Liberties Association, executive and members alike, for this award and this event.

Yet, I have to admit I was surprised by the honour. After all, you guys believe in freedom. I believe in bondage. You like free speech. I gag my clients. You support equality. I preach female superiority. You promote humane treatment of prisoners. I torture mine. But why fuss over details?

Tonight I’m going to tell you about my journey through the criminal justice system and how and what I learned about civil liberties. The main point of my talk is that I did not travel and learn alone. I had and have a group of supporters who are steadfast. None lawyers. I will have some words about them. I will also talk about activists, activism, and those who govern us. And I have certainly had lawyers at my side. I’ll talk about them first. 

Val Scott, Amy Lebovitch and I probably got too much credit for striking down the prostitution laws. Our legal teams got too little credit. Let me drop a few names: Professor Alan Young, Marlys Edwardh, Ron Marzel, Stacey Nichols, Sabrina Pingitore, Kendra Reinhardt, Katrina Pacey, Daniel Sheppard and other lawyers, and law students, many law students, who fought for our side directly and indirectly. The amount of work they did was staggering. They were hardly paid, if paid. They could have made money hand over fist using their talents elsewhere. Their opposition, acting as lackeys for the governments of Canada and Ontario were overpaid, under-worked and accumulated defined pension credits indexed to inflation.

For 20 years I have been fighting, and my lawyers have been fighting on my behalf, against the laws that were struck down once and for all last year. In my youth I was too poor and lacked the support to contemplate challenging laws, or even defending myself in court. But in 1994, when I was raided in Thornhill that changed. I had support. I took a position. I was selling role play and refused to sell sex. Yet I was raided and charged as a prostitute. I, and I might add, my four fellow defendants, entered not guilty pleas. That alone got their charges dropped.  I was able to fight on.

David O’Connor represented me at my bail hearing and did a good job. The late Ken Danson began my defense preparations and Morris Manning took over from him. My supporters recommended that change and Ken was supportive. Ken told me, even after he was replaced, “Terri, you can’t plead guilty. Promise me you won’t”. Morris had the charges thrown out because they were too vague. Unfortunately that did not hold up on appeal. Murray Klippenstein took over. Murray has since risen to prominence. He worked with the highly regarded Charlie Campbell and was advised by Paula Rochman and assisted by Wendy Snelgrove. That was in part because I and my supporters felt that lawyers with a reputation as activists were going to be important as the matter became a high profile battle of attrition. During this time corporate lawyer George Callahan, a true gentleman and pit bull as the situation required, assisted me in ensuring my private affairs were in order. He also joined Klippenstein’s team. At trial the team was disqualified. They were ruled in conflict because they represented all the accused together, but only after the charges on those other than me were dropped.

Fortunately, Osgoode Professor Alan Young signed on as an advisor to the team and was ready to take over if the Klippenstein team was disqualified, and he did. He was assisted by lawyer Leah Daniels, who taught at Seneca, when my trial finally got under way in 1998. They spent all summer on the case and had a team of students assisting them. They flew in experts and prepared an elaborate defense.  

It was a barn-burner of a trial. All the major networks staked out the courthouse in Newmarket, wherever that is. The trial went on for weeks and the questions to be decided, as some reporters said, were as fundamental as those raised over a decade later in the recent Supreme Court decision – in my view more fundamental. The media treated it as front page news, and many of the spectators attended the entire trial for research purposes. Judge Bogusky had a landmark case and the country expected a landmark ruling after a twelve day trial, probably a long written decision which would work its way through the higher courts. He had a few weeks after the close of the trial before he gave his decision.

So what did Bogusky do? He gave a short oral decision. He said the reporters and spectators there had to make a living and were in a hurry to leave. He said there was no reason to rule on what was illegal between consenting adults in private that supported my conviction. The reasons he gave for convicting me were so weak that he was ridiculed in the media. No appeal court that was not rigged would uphold such a disgusting miscarriage of justice. He said the misuse of the search warrant was an understandable reaction of young bucks. Rosie DiManno finished off his reputation for good in her column in the Toronto Star. When I went for my sentencing I faced a broken old man who was angry and humiliated because he got what he deserved. He had become a laughing stock. But it was no laughing matter. He ran his court like it was the time of Stalin. To this day, I do not see a basis for the conviction. 

But wait, it gets worse. Professor Young and Paul Burstein did the appeal in 1999. Well, Judge Finlayson of the Ontario Court of Appeal wrote the worst decision in its history. Read it some time. It was so poor, lawyers told me, that it meant that a stripper or waitress could be charged as a prostitute and it was almost impossible to have a search warrant that could be challenged. It was so poor that judges afterward threw out prostitution and bawdy house charges simply because my conviction and appeal decision were such garbage that they became precedents to cite when acquitting. He lied about evidence. He saw absolutely no merit in my appeal. Lawyers were alarmed by his decision. So were judges. Ever wondered why prostitution convictions have fallen steadily since, despite a rising population and growth of the sex trade? Answer in part, Finlayson’s decision.

Some of this was pointed out by now Judge David Corbett, who sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. He worked with Lucy McSweeney and Timothy Banks, then an articling student, when David prepared his masterful factum in 2000. Unfortunately it was not heard. Corbett needed all his abilities just to find the words to explain why Finlayson’s decision was so appalling. The Crown’s Reply was as bad as Corbett’s appeal factum was good. No justice. But wait. Look at what happened in the years after.

Professor Young remained active for me. When I reopened in downtown Toronto just after my conviction he asked the police, in writing, if they had any objection to what I was doing, which was identical to Thornhill. Well, I was open four years and even gave media tours. No raid, no trial. What a contrast. In York Region the police tore my place apart, broke laws and so on. The Crown came at us with full force in a battle of attrition. The judge, and the appeal court, in a manner Stalin would have approved, produced a conviction and fined me $3,000. The legal fees and legal time amounted to a king’s ransom. The property values in the area of the raid fell by hundreds of thousands of dollars per house. I had no place to live and no means of support. Compare that to the Bondage Hotel in Toronto. No investigation. No raid. No trial. And so forth. Who, I ask you who, decides the difference?  And there were other civil liberties issues that arose during all this. But I have spoken about those in my memoirs.

But lawyers were not only at my side to fight charges. When I was in business again another lawyer, Pierre Cloutier, advised me on and assisted me in the handling of the administrative matters of my business, like registration and minute books and so forth. In 2011 I published my memoirs and got help from, you guessed it, a lawyer. Sender Herschorn and his staff were wonderful in ensuring I was within the law in writing the book, in what I said in the book and in advising me on drafts. He wrote to those mentioned in the drafts and sent them copies and made sure that no one had grounds to sue me. He also helped me with the writing and was encouraging throughout. He assisted me in private legal matters as well.

So you see, there is a great deal that lawyers can do for their clients in the sex trade, or those considering entering it, other than just react to charges or arrests. Lawyers can act proactively. So can non-lawyers with legal training, such as paralegals or law students or case managers from law offices.

All this moves me to speak about what I call secret rules that exist in the Canadian criminal justice system. Here are a few. Secret rule: search warrants are not just to gather evidence. Secret rule: each defendant must have his or her own lawyer to fight a charge, so if not rich likely cannot fight. Secret rule: legal aid given to those charged is not viable in court for a proper defense. Secret rule: if you do raise the funds or help to fight they come after you with all guns as punishment. Secret rule: your resources are better spent anticipating and on moving on after a bust and ensuring those busted are expendable. Secret rule: laws are left vague so authorities don’t have to account for their actions. Secret rule: constitutional challenges are so expensive that it can be decades before long due challenges are ever brought forward. The prostitution laws ruled unconstitutional in 2010, 2012 and 2013 were unconstitutional 20 or more years before they were challenged. Secret rule: there is window dressing to obscure all these secret rules. Things like credit for time served, legal aid, charges not standing up because of civil liberties violations are all cited by governments like Mr. Harper’s as evidence that the system favours those charged. 

Secret rules gave rise to a new organization: The Harper Brotherhood of Overpaid and Under-worked Trained Seals. Unless pressed by a scandal they do not speak out against wife beaters, workplace harassers, bullies of all types, dead beat dads, corporate thieves, polluters and I could go on. Organized crime has never had it easier because institutions and organizations that speak for people without means do not have the ear or heart of the Harper Brotherhood.  Anyone belonging to a union, or who is a sex worker, or who is part of an anti-poverty groups, or who belongs to an environmental group, or who is an intellectual, or even who is a judge is not being listened to. The Harper Brotherhood does not believe in accountability. They do not believe in transparency. They do not believe in open debate. They are creating a Canada where young people see laws made for the wrong reasons and so are all the more tempted not to respect or obey the law.

I say again and again that I cannot comment on the government’s policies on external affairs, the economy or on what it is doing to protect the environment. I only comment on their policies in areas where I am informed properly. But if what I see in those areas is going on elsewhere, I have to wonder how patriotic Mr. Harper and his brotherhood of trained seals are.

Is it patriotic if laws passed are unconstitutional, or contrary to Canada’s values as laid out by the Supreme Court? Is it patriotic to focus on length of sentences and ignore overcrowding in prisons? Is it patriotic to ignore the misuse of warrants? Is it patriotic to ignore the underfunding of legal aid? Ignore spousal abuse? Ignore the shortage of shelters for women, or of shelters that accept family pets so the wife beaters can’t use the family pet as a hostage?  Is it patriotic to be caught by surprise by the sexual harassment scandals about women and minorities in the armed forces and the RCMP? And, my friends, is it patriotic to tell women they can only have sex if they have it for free?

We have seen, in Canada, not too many years ago, morality and vice squads arrest drinkers, gamblers, gays, lesbians, readers of adult pornography, and sellers and buyers of sex acts in the absence of a list of prohibited acts. 

Since then we have also seen changes. Now, governments sell alcohol, sell lottery tickets, gays are openly gay, lesbians are openly lesbian, adult pornography is part of cable television packages and now, thanks to Bill C-36, legalization of the sale of sex acts has been formalized. Maybe one day, we will even get a list of what constitutes a sex act under Bill C-36. Until then, we may have to learn by trial and error.

These freedoms did not fall from the sky. They were fought for. But by whom? I dedicated my memoirs to The Dozen. None are lawyers. They are citizens who saw wrongs being done to someone they knew. So, first of all, they were mad at those who did it. Second, it alerted them to the broader issues and they got angrier. Third, they realized they could make a difference individually and collectively. Here is what I learned from them, and from the lawyers and activists with whom I have fought.

If there is a wrong committed by the authorities, find the enemy of your enemy and become their friend. Find people with money, time, numbers or compromising information. But above all, above all, make sure the effort is in the hands of capable, reliable people. We don’t have lawyers doing court cases only because they care. They also have training on how to win and create change. The same must be true of the activists. I am an activist, but I am not a professional organizer or administrator. But I have around me people who have track records not only of activism, and maybe not even that, but of corporate success, community leadership, academic and administrative expertise and political experience. Some have money. Some have time. The lesson is to put together a winning team to guide and even head the committed activists.

Let me also put it this way. If something is wrong and you want to do something about it, don’t be shy or ashamed to ask everyone to ask everyone else. If the cause is just you will be surprised at how often you get what you want simply by asking for it, asking for it and asking for it. When enough good, capable, reliable people are asked enough they will attract more such people. 

Let me come back to the lawyers for a moment. I have had about 20 lawyers represent me and/or my fellow defendants or plaintiffs. One of them, Professor Alan Young, should get the Order of Canada. Another, David Corbett, became Canada’s first openly gay judge. Most of the others have distinguished themselves in ways too numerous to mention. But they all have had something in common, something very important. They fought for what was right, not profitable or career enhancing. Lawyers will devote part of their time to the high ideals of their profession, if asked. Lawyers get angry about some things too. I have many recollections of how incensed many of those representing me were at how the authorities have behaved. It is good to have a skilled and angry lawyer on your side, and one skill that is crucial is that he or she works well with the activists and supporters.

Now, sadly, one lawyer is the polar opposite of all that. Former justice minister Rob Nicholson. I want to tell you about one single moment in his life. I think it was a defining moment for both him and Canada. In March 2012 the Ontario Court of Appeal basically upheld Justice Himel’s 2010 decision striking down the key laws against prostitution. A few weeks later Nicholson stood up in the House of Commons and said something to the effect that he was pleased to say that the government would appeal to the Supreme Court and would not discuss the matter further until the court had ruled.

Now let me tell you why I think that was a defining moment.  

Reason number one. I think he knew there were merits to what Himel’s decision contained, merits that he could have acted upon immediately – like allowing sex workers to hire off-duty police as security or work in groups from fixed locations, or support spouses and children who lived with them. I think he knew the laws were void for vagueness and could have made them clearer and fairer. I think he knew that other laws could, as Himel said, be used to control the worst aspects of sex work. And I think he knew the laws themselves created dangers for women and resulted in deaths. I think he knew all this yet, with pleasure, as he put it, appealed the whole package.

Reason number two. He knew or should have known that it was against every principle his party stood for to lump consenting harmless adult behaviour in private, like women paying younger men for sex, men keeping women, women like me who enjoy punishing and humiliating men who pay me to do it, in with trafficked or abused women. That is not allowing for individual autonomy and responsibility for one’s own decisions. I think he knew all this, yet, with pleasure, he appealed.

Reason number three. If I am wrong about the first two reasons it was definitely an even more defining moment. Perhaps he actually believed his stated position that the laws were constitutional, and that no changes were needed. If that is true, if he believed that nothing being said by all the judges, experts, sex workers and others had any merit at all  he is a mental defective.

So, my friends, it was a defining moment because it was then and there that the justice minister proved himself and his government to be either liars or mental defectives. Three levels of court are there to show it. 

Did, Nicholson, the country’s highest legal official, who swore to defend our constitution forget, or even know, what is involved in mounting a constitutional challenge? How many has he done? He should try it some time and see what it involves. For instance, big bucks. Add to that tons of volunteer legal time. The work involved with the experts. Try 3 years of hearings and related preparation. Try dealing with government lawyers who do not hesitate to offer crap as evidence and argument. If you don’t believe it was crap ask Judge Himel and the Supreme Court. Try to deal with a government that orders their lawyers to make it go away by any means necessary and then orders them to appeal, when there are no grounds to appeal, simply to make the issue go away. A government that has no regard for Charter challenges. A government that dismissed with a wave of a hand tens of thousands of pages of court tested evidence that should have been an alarm bell to any reasonably intelligent person.

Then try dealing with a portion of the media who in one breath points to the downsides of the sex trade, whatever that is, while turning a blind eye to the finding of the courts that the very laws they are fighting to retain are largely the cause of those evils. Try dealing with commentators who bring in obscure new studies or reports, not tested in court, to attack legalization of the sex trade, while ignoring the findings of a virtual 3 year public inquiry, with evidence tested in court, that resulted in the Himel decision and what it had to say about other countries. Barbara Kay and Margaret Wente are two recent examples of such cherry pickers who don’t even say in their columns if they have even read the decision. Rosie DiManno said “read the damn decision”, out of frustration with such lousy journalism.

Mr. Harper has replaced Mr. Nicholson with Mr. MacKay, the former defense minister. Women and minorities being harassed in the armed forces is more of a problem than enemy fire. That will be the MacKay legacy. Let me speak for a moment about Peter MacKay. He recently said he was not aware of sexual harassment in his party or in parliament and so forth. He of course conveniently forgets to mention a few things. One is the problem of rape and sexual harassment in the armed forces during the time he was defense minister, as I have just mentioned. It is also an epidemic in the RCMP. But with Vic Toews as minister, who is surprised? But why be surprised at any of this. Elmer MacKay, Peter’s father, was a prominent conservative. When it comes to father and son ask around. Ask Karlheinz Schreiber. Ask David Orchard. Ask Belinda Stronach. Ask Brian Mulroney’s former staffers. Ask the women in armed forces about the culture of blame the victim, blame the women who come forward. Ask around about the fecklessness of the Integrity Commissioner’s office. Ask about the iron grip the government has taken on the internal audit process and destroyed it. Ask about Mr. MacKay’s appearances before the Senate and Commons justice committees where he skated around legitimate questions about C-36. Why didn’t he get thrown out? And this, this is the guy who is talking about zero tolerance for abusive behaviour towards women? Good heavens, he is the only guy in Ottawa who doesn’t know what is going on if he is being honest. His notion of accountability and zero tolerance would scare Joseph Stalin. Well, enough about Mr. MacKay. Believe me, you’ll be hearing plenty more about him and his in the months to come.

Well, regardless of what he knows I also know a few things. I and my supporters and many others have been asking around. You wouldn’t believe what I am being told and shown. I will not take up any more time tonight about what we have been told and provided with, except to say that I will not accept criticism if I, and my fellow activists, refuse to keep to the high road in the debate on the new sex trade laws or in dealing with this government and its supporters. The government and its trained seals hit bottom long ago. They deserve everything they are going to get. They don’t deserve fair treatment. If sex workers are worried about the code of confidentiality, and we are, we must remember that the Harper Brotherhood has disregarded all sorts of codes of honour and we should not, in a fight for the lives of our sisters, feel compelled to hold ourselves to a higher standard. 

Canada faces some threats from terrorists and hate groups. Our men and women in uniform are fighting for us here and abroad. We know what they are fighting against. But let me respectfully say to Canadians what I think our troops are fighting for as well. They stand for security, yes. But security for what? I think they are fighting for our freedoms, meaning, yes, our civil liberties. We disrespect our citizens in uniform when we allow people with power to act arbitrarily, the way Mr. Harper and his lackeys are doing with the sex trade. We disrespect them when we allow Mr. Harper’s government to disregard prominent citizens – judges, professors, leaders in unions, churches, community organizations and other bodies in society that speak for people without money or political power.

So my friends we must all be soldiers, and each do what we can to ensure our governments at all levels are held to a standard of accountability that ensures they respect truth and properly justify their actions. For that matter, governments can hold other governments to such a standard. For example, Vancouver wants the federal government to refer C-36 to the Supreme Court and has indicated that C-36 will work against the guidelines of the Supreme Court decision

In Ontario, Premier Kathleen Wynne and Toronto Mayor John Tory must now speak. She has a majority government in Canada’s largest province. He was just elected mayor of Canada’s largest city. I believe how they act, not just speak, in response to C-36, will define their level of integrity. 

Thank you again so very much for this honour, and for having me here tonight.

PRESS RELEASE

Posted on by
Reply

Dominatrix Terri-Jean Bedford to Receive 2014 Ontario Civil Liberties Association Award (Ottawa, October 20, 2014) — The OCLA will present its 2014 Civil Liberties Award to Miss Bedford at a public presentation and reception in Ottawa in November.

“I want to be remembered for standing against secret rules”, said Miss Bedford. “My motto is that I’ll fight for my rights whether you like it or not”, she added.

Miss Bedford has fought for the freedom, dignity, and safety of sex workers in Canada. She has joined many prominent Canadians and dedicated activists to this end. She has opposed the unjust laws affecting her profession in court, in the streets, in the Senate, in the press, and in her writings. She has even been to jail under these laws.

Miss Bedford has been an inspiration to those who work to correct society’s moral and legal hypocrisy, and to secure a human right of adult individuals to provide and buy or exchange personal services by informed consent without the state’s interference.

The day in November and venue are to be announced later. Last year’s recipient was Harry Kopyto.

OCLA’s Award page, updated regularly: http://ocla.ca/ocla-civil-liberties-award/
Facebook event: https://www.facebook.com/events/349779428525127/

About OCLA

The OCLA vigorously advocates for authentic and unqualified freedom of expression of individuals, on all topics and in every form, in accordance with the right to free expression enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The OCLA also advocates for unimpeded civil liberties and civil rights of all persons, in dealings with public and private institutions and corporations.

Contact:

Joseph Hickey Executive Director Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) http://ocla.ca 613-252-6148 (c) joseph.hickey@ocla.ca

All Bill C-36 Opponents

Posted on by
Reply

October 5, 2014

To All Opponents of Bill C-36

I am the Bedford in Bedford Versus Canada, the case that overturned Canada’s prostitution laws. I am writing to you today to update you about part of what is being done to oppose Bill C-36, which is the new law before Parliament to replace the laws struck down.

This law, like the old laws, will fail to be enforced much. This law will eventually be deemed unconstitutional. This law will cause a major loss of credibility for those who supported it. What is being done to oppose the law is being done and I want to tell you about part of that and what you can do.

I wrote to Premier Wynne of Ontario. I asked her to refer the law to Ontario’s highest court, if and when it becomes law, to see if it is constitutional. In the interim I asked her to publicly state she would do this. I also asked her to instruct her crown attorneys not to enforce the law. All this is within her power. She has a majority government.

She spoke about my letter at a press conference and said her main concern is safety. I have been in touch with her since, but our correspondence is confidential. I am writing to ask all activists to state in any way to Premier Wynne, and indeed to all premiers, the consequences of remaining silent and doing nothing.

The consequences of this new law will likely include more missing and murdered women, sex workers forced out from safe locations and into the streets, the increased presence of organized crime in the sex trade and widespread entrapment as a way of enforcing the new laws.

Please put the focus of the debate on Premier Wynne. She has a choice. She can speak up and act, or let Mr. Harper impose his will on her. Help her and the other premiers decide. Write to them. Premier Wynne’s e-mail is kathleen.wynne@ontario.ca. Tell the media the premiers have a choice. Demonstrate if necessary. Your efforts matter. 

Yours truly,

(Signed in the original)

Terri-Jean Bedford
terrijeanbedford @ gmail.com

Bill C-36 Opponents

Posted on by
Reply

September 28, 2014

Dear Opponents of Bill C-36,

I am writing to many of the groups and persons who have stood with Valerie, Amy, me and our legal team against the prostitution laws that were struck down. These groups and persons have voiced their support in so many ways and their messages were heard across the country again and again. I thank all of you for that support. I have done so in person when able. 

The new law, Bill C-36 is of course an outrage. It will of course fail before the courts, fail in its implementation, and in the process its supporters will again be discredited. You and all the others have already been to helping to ensure that failure will happen.

Recently I testified before the Senate and in the question period after opening statements I was ejected. This got a lot of attention. One of the things I said, which also got much attention, was that I would expose some clients of sex workers. Everyone thought I meant politicians who supported C-36.

I have an advisory group working on the legalities and mechanics of that process. Part of that process, if in fact I do follow though, is determining what sex workers think about exposing some clients, and I am writing to ask you to tell me what you think. Please ask your colleagues to tell me as well by sending me an e-mail at the address below.

One reason for exposing some clients is to show how unfair the law is when sex workers can report clients to the police and only the client is charged. This means, it would seem, that blackmail and entrapment have largely been legalized. This would probably add fuel to constitutional challenges.

Professor Young also pointed out at the Senate that immunity from prosecution has until now only been given by prosecutors, not in legislation, as C-36 does. So exposing clients would show how irrational the law is, as well as illegal itself. Exposing would probably also add this fuel as well to constitutional challenges.

Another obvious reason for exposing is to show the hypocrisy of those who want to impose their will on others while themselves engaging in the very behaviour they want to others to stop.

Yet another reason is to ensure the public remains aware of this issue and of the dangers and are unfair hardships the government’s approach would create for those in the sex trade. Nothing attracts media attention as much as politics combined with scandals of this kind. I could mention other reasons, but enough for now.  

However, concerns come to mind too. Does exposing set a bad precedent for the sex trade overall, even if the law is not implemented to any extent or frozen in the courts right away? What other negative repercussions there be for sex workers if I did release part or all of my list? What would the consequences be if I just released one or two or a few names? What should be the criteria for names chosen for release? Would you and your members and colleagues prefer me to back off exposing clients altogether, and if so why? I seek your help in answering these questions. 

Please share this with all you wish to share it with. I will read all e-mails sent to me and take all advice very seriously when I decide what to do. I appreciate that feedback every bit as much as the support shown over these years which, I say yet again, I am sincerely grateful for.

Yours truly,

Terri-Jean Bedford
terrijeanbedford @ gmail.com

PRESS RELEASE

Posted on by
1

This afternoon I testified before the Senate Committee on Justice and Constitutional Affairs. I gave my speech and then was ejected from the question and answer session for failing to stop speaking when the Chair asked me to. I apologize for losing my temper. I was barely able to read my speech because I was so angry at the government for parading victims with repeated irrelevant information and then organizations who were shilling for government handouts on which they are dependent. The shameful use of victims by the government in this process, and their disregard for life by ignoring court findings, refusing to listen to their own legal staff and refusing to answer questions from legitimate sources made me snap. I have already been told that people are sympathetic to the points I made and even to my outburst. They seemed to agree that the government can’t handle the truth. They have repeatedly shown disrespect for various institutions, processes and persons. The truth will win out.

Speech to Senate Committee

Posted on by
Reply

Prime Minister Harper called me again. He offered to appoint me to the Senate. As a government whip. I turned him down. I might run into former clients on Parliament Hill.

I am the Bedford in Bedford Versus Canada, the constitutional challenge striking down the prostitution laws. I know the sex trade in Canada as well as anyone. I learned about the issues by working in and managing almost all aspects of the sex trade over 30 years. I have fought the prostitution laws for many of these years. I have been in jail because of the laws. I have been in court as a defendant or appellant more times than I care to remember. I am Canada’s most famous dominatrix and perhaps Canada’s most famous prostitute. I was in attendance for most of the sessions of the 3 years of the constitutional challenge. So, maybe I know what I am talking about.

In these brief remarks I will make only a few points of my own. You have a library of evidence against Bill C-36, and I don’t want to repeat or submit briefs saying what so many others have said so well.

First of all senators, when it comes to consenting adults, the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.

Second, the national debate currently under way has not given enough attention to sex trade workers who don’t want to exit and are there by choice. If you ask me today I will tell you about some of them. These women, and indeed male sex workers, should not be grouped in with those who want out.

Third, what exactly is Bill C-36 supposed to outlaw? What exactly would be illegal between consenting adults in private for money? The response from some supporters of Bill C-36 are words to the effect that “everyone knows” or “the courts would have to decide”. If everyone knows, why not answer the question? If the courts have to decide, why not refer the bill there immediately?

Fourth, why does the government claim they are making the purchase of sex illegal. If it was legal to purchase sex before, where did all the John Schools come from? This new law changes nothing in that regard.

Fifth. The Justice Minister was wrong to call the sex trade degrading. The clients are there by choice. They are half the transaction. Many are pillars of the community, often business leaders, professionals and politicians.  Most sex trade workers do not consider their work degrading. Lumping them in with those who want out is not acceptable in a free society.

Sixth, those who ask if you want your daughter to be a sex worker might also ask if you want your daughter working in any number of poorly paid, dangerous or menial jobs while getting sexually harassed in the bargain. And while we are at it, I want my daughter to work in the sex trade, but it should be her choice. Not only that, I may want your daughter to work in the sex trade and for it to be her choice. If you don’t like that I suggest you mind your own business and move to a country where the choices of women in the bedroom are controlled by the government.

Senators, it is bad policy to direct scarce law enforcement resources to stop consenting adult behaviour in private – while tax evaders, wife beaters, terrorists and what have you go unpunished.

So Senators, please don’t allow Bill C-36 to pass. Stand up for your country first. Use laws you have to help those most in need, in and out of the sex trade.  

Senators, please, please don’t allow Parliament to force Canadian women to only have sex for free.

Thank you.

Hearings in Parliament

Posted on by
Reply

I am the Bedford in Bedford Versus Canada, the constitutional challenge striking down the prostitution laws. I was one of the 3 plaintiffs. I have patiently and carefully watched the first 4 days of prostitution law hearings by a committee of Parliament last week. But prior to that, I had plenty of opportunities to learn about the issues. During the challenge I sat in on most of the sessions, private and public, trial and appeals. I was a witness and was cross-examined. I read most of the evidence as well. As a plaintiff I had the right to be present at all times and have access to all the materials.

I also learned about the issues by working in and managing almost all aspects of the sex trade over 30 years. I have fought the prostitution laws for many of these years. I have been in jail because of the laws. I have been in court as a defendant or appellant more times than I care to remember. I am Canada’s most famous dominatrix and perhaps Canada’s most famous prostitute. So maybe I know what I am talking about. Here are my some of my thoughts about those 4 days.

I asked myself, what exactly do they want to outlaw? What would be illegal between consenting adults in private for money? The response? Words to the effect that “everyone knows” or “the courts would have to decide”. If everyone knows, why not answer the question? If the courts would have to decide, why not refer the bill there immediately?

I found myself wondering why almost no one mentioned that in the past the purchase of sex was already effectively illegal. If not, where did all the so-called John Schools come from?

I was very pleased the committee was reminded that the government spent years and millions of dollars defending the old laws as constitutional. That makes those in the government responsible either stupid or liars. Three levels of court told us that. Take your pick. Are they suddenly credible now?

I was revolted by the way Mr. MacKay was preaching about protecting women when he, as minister of national defence, was responsible for the armed forces and their open season on sexual harassment. If he didn’t know what was going on he is twice as guilty as if he was covering up. He has lost the moral authority to speak about protecting women. 

I was glad to see clients of sex trade workers defended. I have known hundreds, many in the biblical sense and many at the end of my whip. Clients are not bad men just because they are clients. Most abusers of women are not clients.

I got the sense that some of the witnesses who spoke in support of C-36 sadly behaved as if they had been bought or were kissing up for funding, and of misfortunes being paraded gratuitously. That being said, I feel for those who have suffered. I have been there myself, in spades.

I was very, very pleased to hear that wider social and economic problems have to be addressed to help women who wish to exit the sex trade, and that the government is not proposing to do much. 

Bill C-36 will fail. Changes to or removal of clauses from a fundamentally flawed bill are irrelevant. It is flawed in its intent. It will be flawed in its implementation. It is flawed as to whether it is itself legal or constitutional. It is flawed in that it will make things worse for women. Its passage will be a victory for human traffickers and organized crime.

At the same time, Mr. Harper has lost in a colossal way. This discussion will help to make people forget the positive things he achieved. This discussion will benefit his political opponents more than him. There are so many negative things being said about him,  Mr. MacKay and the Conservative members of the committee, across the country. It is not possible, even to members of his base of support, to see the government’s handling of this matter as anything but dishonest, vindictive, incompetent and reckless.

It is only fitting that Mr. Harper is being punished by a dominatrix.

Dominatrix Writes Premier

Posted on by
3

The Honourable Kathleen Wynne
Premier of Ontario

Dear Premier,

I am the Bedford in Bedford Versus Canada, the case that overturned Canada’s prostitution laws. Three court decisions, culminating in the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in December 2013, confirmed that these laws were unconstitutional.
Prime Minister Harper was elected with a majority government. He has recently introduced Bill C-36 into Parliament to make illegal the purchase of sex acts, whatever that means, advertising of the sale of sex and numerous other related activities. I and many legal experts, informed activists, sex trade workers and concerned citizens believe the new bill is not constitutional.
The opposition parties in the House of Commons have asked that the Government refer the bill to the Supreme Court immediately after a final vote in the House because of this concern. To date the Government has refused.
You too were elected with a majority government. If and when the bill becomes law you can ask The Ontario Court of Appeal to render an opinion on whether it is constitutional. You can indicate any time before that that you will do so. You can also instruct crown attorneys not to lay charges under the bill, even in advance of it passing, and not to do so at least until a final court decision, possibly the Supreme Court, has ruled on whether the law, or its various parts, is constitutional.
I am asking that you do to do both. I am asking you to do both in the coming days. I am asking that you not say this is a federal matter. I am asking that you not say you need to study the matter. I am asking you not to delegate this decision. If you need more information please contact me and I will have eminent Canadians get in touch with you.
Already the horrible results of C-36 are being seen. Already some sex workers are leaving the safety of agencies and going back underground, meaning working alone without security or a safe location. Already some clients are seeking anonymity and secrecy, preventing screening and accountability. There are other terrible consequences looming and in progress. Premier, you know this means more murdered women at the hands of sexual predators – because of C-36. A simple search of the Internet will provide you with the opinions of lawyers, legislators, academics and the sex workers themselves of the dangers that C-36 creates – constitutional or not.

I know you realize the freedom that you enjoy in your personal life was once at issue as well, and were opposed by the same segments of society now behind C-36. Same sex marriage, same sex benefits and even same sex relationships were illegal not long ago, and some people would make them illegal again if they thought they could get away with it. Now the proposed requirement that women only have sex for free, that men can be entrapped, that local authorities will have unreasonable discretion, that freedom of speech concerning advertising the legal sale of sex will be threatened, and that personal friends and associates of women and men who sell sex but who are not involved in the business but can be implicated, is surely alarming to you both personally and as my Premier.
I am sharing this letter with the public. I believe they have a right to know that you have the option to act and have been asked.
I congratulate you on your election and thank you in advance for standing up for the people of Ontario against the appalling conduct of our federal government.

Yours truly,

Terri-Jean Bedford

Dominatrix Slaps Government

Posted on by
1

To all direct or indirect recipients
Please distribute or publish as desired

“Dominatrix Terri-Jean Bedford on the Proposed New Prostitution Law”

In 2007 I was one of three women who began a constitutional challenge of the prostitution laws. I am the Bedford in Bedford Versus Canada. Before that I was wrongly convicted under these laws, which were struck down in 2010 by Justice Himel. In 2012 the Ontario Court of Appeal basically supported her decision and in 2013 the Supreme Court, Chief Justice McLachlin writing, voted unanimously to support it as well. They said the laws were arbitrary, too vague, worked against stated objectives, endangered specific groups and put unfair restrictions on a legal activity, the sex trade. Unfair because no similar restrictions exist on other legal activities.

All through this Mr. Nicholson, the Justice Minister, insisted the laws were constitutional, while Mr. Harper hid from the media and said he didn’t know who I was. Who were they kidding? Perhaps the legal advisors they had then were the ones who are advising them now. 

Finally Mr. Harper dumped Mr. Nicholson and replaced him with Mr. MacKay, possibly to reward Mr. MacKay for making the RCMP a hotbed of sexual harassment and coverups. Mr. MacKay, with Mr. Harper out of the country of course, tabled new laws to replace the ones struck down and made other amendments to the Criminal Code.

That was over a week ago. I have been reading and hearing a lot of reaction since that time. In fact, so much has been written and said about the proposed new law in recent days that I don’t need to tell you about it here, except to say again that it will not survive the courts, is not enforceable on any significant scale and is a gift to organized crime if it does stand up.

Word is getting around already that these new laws will bog down. In my opinion, the end result is in sight. The government will once again, as in the past, fail to legislate private sexual behaviour of consenting adults, abortion rights, rights to safe injection sites, mandatory minimum sentences, same sex marriage, inter-racial marriage, and so forth. This is just more politics at the expense of the vulnerable to kiss up to religious nuts. This hopefully last chapter is no surprise to me at all given the government of the day.

I don’t know to this day if any of these men have even read the 2010 judicial decision. If they did they would have realized that a three year trial of such depth would have provided some insights about needed changes, and they could have changed the law back then. Instead it is only now that they decide the purchase of sex should be illegal. They had three years to arrive at this brilliant insight. The judge in 2010 told them to act then if at all. They chose not to act, but to run, and they are doing it again. 

This is because these new laws are actually designed to fail, and they know it, but it makes the issue go off their desk for a while. They do not seem to understand or care that the new laws create the same harms and injustices as the old ones, probably worse. Instead, they want to oppose prostitution, or appear to do so, at all costs – and the costs will be high.

If they were seeking to assist vulnerable Canadian women they would, as I have said, have read Justice Himel’s decision, which said, after a three year trial, that no new laws were needed. She said existing laws that were not challenged, laws against human trafficking, assault, confinement, coercion, and so forth, addressed the worst aspects of prostitution. The higher courts agreed because it is a waste of law enforcement resources to punish consenting women for not having sex for free.  You would need a camera in every bedroom. 

Yet, Mr. Harper and Mr. MacKay said more study and consultation, under their supervision, where the outcomes could be controlled, was needed. They were wrong, they never even said they looked at the evidence from the three year trial, or the recent submissions of hundreds of Canada’s leading intellectuals.  They are fooling almost no one with their cynical and malicious partisanship. They don’t seem to care that they are throwing law enforcement into chaos and creating an open field for terrorists, child pornographers, burglars, drunk drivers and the like – by having the police chase after consenting women and their customers for not having sex for free.  

Mr. MacKay called the sex trade degrading. He is wrong. For starters, the customers are there by choice. They are half the transaction. Most of the women who work in it are there by choice. How many people who clean toilets for minimum wage at a burger joint while getting sexually harassed in a poor job market are doing that by choice? The sex trade business is booming.

The fools who ask if you want your daughter to be a sex worker might also ask if they want their daughters joining the army abroad, changing bedpans in a nursing home, selling shoes, collecting garbage, or working in menial jobs while getting sexually harassed in the bargain. Or do you want your daughter to get married and be one of the ten percent of women who are battered by their partner – an issue Mr, Harper won’t get tough on for fear of offending his base. The people who use the “Do you want your daughter?” argument are fools, because they single out the sex trade.

And while we are at it, I want my daughter to work in the sex trade, but it is her choice. And on top of that, I want your daughter to work in the sex trade, for it to be her choice, and for you to mind your own business and move to a country where women are controlled very strictly so you can have your way there.  Many women in the sex trade work their way through college, support their kids without daycare, do not work long hours and are their own boss – despite the laws that reduce safety, which were struck down despite the opposition of uninformed religious nuts and others.

Mr. MacKay said the sex trade has been around for thousands of years. So it appears he is a historian as well as a sex therapist. Sex is indeed very popular, as he and his father know. More brilliant insight. Unfortunately, if women don’t have sex for free they are, in his view, degraded. Sounds like Reverend Jimmy Swaggart and Reverend Jim Bakker, two television evangelists who preached like Mr. MacKay and Mr. Harper while being adulterous to say the least. The most sanctimonious usually have the most to hide. All in due time.

Did I mention that Mr. MacKay was minister in charge of the armed forces of Canada, where sexual harassment, assaults and coverups were rampant? Did I mention that women who came forward became victims of Mr. Harper and Mr. MacKay as well as of the abusers? Never have whistle-blowers been so persecuted in Ottawa. Now to top it off they are seeking to limit the conditions under which women in Canada can have sex in private with another consenting adult. All this while sending our troops abroad to fight for freedom, or criticizing non-democratic governments! Wow!

Oh, and did I mention that under the proposed new law a man will likely have more chance of going to jail for paying a woman for sex than for raping her on a date or beating his wife? Many women like being sex trade workers. Many women in other occupations don’t like what they do and dream of exit strategies from other occupations. Many more women, women with choices and means, would go into the sex trade if Mr. Harper and Mr. MacKay would allow them to protect themselves and stop calling the free choices of women in the bedroom degrading.

All that being said, I view victory as inevitable for our side. This outburst by the government at the expense of more dead women is one thing on the list of their criminal justice program. Like the others it will fail, and our police will be able to get back to dealing with real criminals, and not just chase after women who don’t have sex for free or the men who pay them. 

I am asked if Mr. Harper is still calling me and asking me to accept a job in the Senate, as a government whip. I had to tell him to stop calling. I could not accept the job. I was afraid I would run into too many former clients on Parliament Hill.

Terri-Jean Bedford’s memoirs, Dominatrix on Trial, are available on line and at Chapters-Indigo stores.

Dominatrix Responds to New Prostitution Law

Posted on by
1

Unlike the government I have read the document in question and had it carefully explained to me by experts. The new law would basically prohibit the purchasing of and advertising of sex for sale. It would also penalize persons who were in an exploitative relationship with sex trade workers. Mr. McKay called sex work degrading and said other means must also be added by other bodies to enable women to get out of the sex trade.

I see now why Mr. Harper told McKay to table the bill while he was out of the country. The bill is a rework of the old legislation and will fare no better. We may not even need a constitutional challenge to gut it. It spits in the face of the courts and judges will know this. It repeats the legal and safety shortcomings of the old laws. It does not even define what is and what is not a sex act. As a dominatrix I need to know this so I can punish Mr. Harper for such incompetence.

Mr. McKay called the sex trade degrading. Who the hell is he to tell women they have to only have sex for free? Who the hell is he to tell consenting adults what they can and cannot do in private? How can he stand for a ban on advertising an activity that is legal? I have news for him. Many women love being sex trade workers. Many men who visit sex trade workers, which include some well known members of his own party, are prominent and highly regarded members of society who love their families.

This is the same government that kept insisting that the old laws were constitutional and should be kept. Are we going to believe them now? Neither he nor Mr. McKay nor the dumped Mr. Nicholson would say if they had read the decision of Justice Himel which the Supreme Court endorsed. It said there are plenty of existing laws which address the worst aspects of prostitution, aside from the ones she struck down.

Politics is the oldest profession. Mr. Harper and Mr. McKay have trumped up incompetent and unethical legislation so they can blame the courts when all restrictions on the sex trade, as distinct from other forms of business, are finally removed. Just like the rest of his “Tough on Crime Agenda” this is a scam and ignores real measures that could be taken to protect Canadian women. Organized crime, human traffickers and exploitative pimps are celebrating today. Mr. Harper is encouraging the women in the sex trade to go underground, where these evil people lie in wait. 

Government Prostitution Survey Results – A Message From Terri-Jean Bedford

Posted on by
Reply

The survey is a scam. I say that despite the fact that the respondents agreed with us that the sale of sex should remain legal. The respondents were also not decisively against purchase of sex or in favour of charging all the associates of sex workers. So even this rigged survey, assuming we are being correctly informed about the response, does not give clear direction to the government. I say the survey was rigged and a scam for a number of reasons. Here are some of them. For one, who drew up the questions? Why a question asking if the government should tell consenting adults what they can do in private for money? Why wasn’t there a question asking what should be included in the definition of a sex act or sex? Why wasn’t there a question about which As to criminalizing the purchase of sex, I am including below an open letter from many leading Canadian intellectuals familiar with the issues at hand. I ask you to read the letter. Look as well at who received it and who sent it. It should convince you that if the government does introduce the so-called Nordic approach it will ensure that Mr. Harper and his ministers will be seen as cowards only looking out for themselves by doing what organized crime wants them to do: meaning preventing women from protecting themselves, ensuring they can only have sex for free and denying consenting adults in private basic liberty. We can do better than that. Ask the Supreme Court.

OPEN LETTER CALLING FOR DECRIMINALIZATION
OF SEX WORK IN CANADA AND
OPPOSITION TO CRIMINALIZING
THE PURCHASING OF SEX

Right Hon. Stephen Harper, Prime Minister, Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada,
Hon. Tom Mulcair, Leader of the Official Opposition, the New Democratic Party of Canada,
Hon. Justin Trudeau, Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada,
Mr. Jean-Francois Fortin, Interim Leader of the Bloc Québécois,
Hon. Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada,

Dear Sirs and Madam,

Re: Evidence-Based Call for Decriminalization of Sex Work in Canada and Opposition to Criminalizing the Purchasing of Sex
We, the undersigned, are profoundly concerned that the Government of Canada is considering the introduction of new legislation to criminalize the purchasing of sex. The proposed legislation is not scientifically grounded and evidence strongly suggests that it would recreate the same social and health-related harms of current criminalization. We join other sex worker, research, and legal experts across the country and urge the Government of Canada to follow the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision and support decriminalization of sex work as a critical evidence-based approach to ensuring the safety, health, and human rights of sex workers.

A large body of scientific evidence from Canada,[1] Sweden and Norway (where clients and third parties are criminalized), and globally[2] clearly demonstrates that criminal laws targeting the sex industry have overwhelmingly negative social, health, and human rights consequences to sex workers, including increased violence and abuse, stigma, HIV and inability to access critical social, health and legal protections. These harms disproportionately impact marginalized sex workers including female, Indigenous and street-involved sex workers, who face the highest rates of violence and murder in our country. In contrast, in New Zealand, since the passage of a law to decriminalize sex work in 2003, research and the government’s own evaluation have documented marked improvements in sex workers’ safety, health, and human rights.[3]

Therefore, we call on the Government of Canada to join with global leaders, community, researchers and legal experts in rejecting criminalization regimes, including those that criminalize the purchase of sexual services, and instead support the decriminalization of sex work in Canada as scientifically-grounded and necessary to ensuring the safety, health, and human rights of sex workers. Below, we briefly outline our key concerns.

1. Criminalization of any aspect of sex work undermines access to critical safety, health and legal protections: The science is unequivocal that where sex work operates within a criminalized and policed environment –whether targeting sex workers, their working conditions, or the people they work with, for, or hire (clients, managers, bodyguards, or other third parties)– sex workers are placed in an adversarial relationship with police and are unable to access critical social, health and legal protections. Both peer review research and the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry Report have shown that within criminalization environments, stigma and discrimination of sex workers are major barriers for sex workers to reporting violence and abuse to authorities and accessing other critical health and social supports both in Canada and globally [4] In the official evaluation of the ban on purchasing sex in Sweden, sex workers clearly reported that the law increased police scrutiny, stigma and discrimination, and deterred reporting to police.[5] In contrast, the New Zealand Prostitution Reform Act (2003) placed the human rights and occupational health and safety of sex workers as the central goal of their law reform; and government’s own evaluation showed sex workers were significantly more likely to report abuse to authorities following decriminalization.[6]

2. Enforcement prohibiting communication in public spaces between sex workers and their clients directly elevates risks for violence, abuse and other health and social harms. Since the Communication Law was enacted in 1985 to reduce “public nuisance”, the number of sex workers who have gone missing and been murdered in Canadian cities has escalated dramatically, with disproportionate numbers of Indigenous women. Evidence has consistently shown that in order for sex workers and their clients to avoid police detection, sex workers have to work alone, in isolated areas and rush into vehicles before they have the opportunity to screen prospective clients or negotiate the terms of transactions, severely limiting their ability to avoid dangerous clients or refuse unwanted services (e.g. unprotected sex).[7] The Supreme Court of Canada identified client screening as one of the most vital tools available to sex workers to protect their safety and health.[8] In Sweden and Norway where laws criminalize the purchasing of sex, research has shown that enforcement targeting clients still forces sex workers to operate in clandestine locations to avoid police, increases their insecurity,[9] and places them at continued and increased risk for violence, abuse and other health-related harms, including HIV infection.[10] A report commissioned by City of Oslo in Norway (2012) found that the rate of strangulation and threat with a deadly weapon of sex workers had increased substantially in the three years since the implementation of the criminalization of clients.[11]

3. Criminalization of any aspect of sex work hinders sex worker’s ability to establish safer workspaces, to work collectively, and engage third parties who can increase their safety. Both the Supreme Court of Canada and the two lower courts in Bedford clearly highlighted access to indoor spaces as a critical safety measure, based on two decades of evidence from local and international sex workers, academics, and legal experts.[12]  In Canada, an evaluation of safer indoor work spaces in 2012 within supportive low-income housing in Vancouver demonstrated that when sex workers have opportunities to move off-street, they can increase their control over their working conditions and are able to adopt safety and security measures that protect their health, safety and overall well-being.[13]  Safer indoor spaces also provide a critical connection with social, health, and legal supports, including accessing police protections in cases of violence or abuse. However, in a law enforcement environment where clients remain targets for arrest, criminalization would continue to prevent sex workers from bringing clients indoors to safer indoor spaces; thereby reproducing the same harms as the current criminalized model. By contrast, in New Zealand and New South Wales, Australia, where sex work is fully decriminalized, sex workers have access to safer indoor work spaces and have increased control over the conditions of their work.[14]

4. Criminalizing the purchasing of sex does not reduce or eliminate prostitution. Following the ban on purchasing of sex, a number of evaluations of the criminalized regime from Sweden have found no evidence that the overall number of sex workers was reduced.[15] Of note, public health researchers in New Zealand have repeatedly estimated the size of the sex industry in 5 locations, and compared with 1999 (prior to decriminalization), the data show no increase in overall numbers of sex workers.[16]

5. Criminalizing any aspect of sex work undermines efforts to address human trafficking. The conflation of sex trafficking and sexual exploitation with sex work (the exchange of sex for money among consenting adults) undermines efforts to address these critical human rights issues. In the US and increasingly in Canada, funds intended for use to address human trafficking have been misused on anti-prostitution enforcement efforts. In two separate governmental evaluations of the Swedish criminalization regime, police reported that it creates an obstacle to prosecuting “traffickers and coercive pimps”.[17] Furthermore, scientific evidence and the experience of anti-trafficking organizations suggest that criminalizing the purchase of sex renders it more difficult to assist individuals in situations of coercion and abuse.[18]

Canadian researchers and academics call for evidence-based policies that are consistent with safety, health and human rights for sex workers and communities.

We are calling on the federal government to demonstrate leadership when addressing these challenging issues by promoting evidence-based laws and policies that protect the safety, health and human rights of sex workers. We encourage Canada to adopt the decriminalization of sex work recommendations of the World Health Organization, UNFPA, UNAIDS Advisory Group on HIV and Sex Work, and the Global Commission on HIV and the Law.[19] We invite you to work together with sex workers, researchers and legal experts to develop evidence-based policy approaches that promote the safety, health, and human rights of sex workers.

We look forward to your response.

Signed,
1.        Gillian Abel, PhD | University of Otago | Christchurch, NZ
2.        Barry Adam, PhD | University of Windsor | Windsor, ON
3.        Anu Aggarwal, PhD
4.        Laura Agustin, PhD | The Naked Anthropologist
5.        Aziza Ahmed, MA, JD | Northeastern University School of Law | Boston, MA
6.        Michel Alary, MD, PhD | Université Laval | Québec, QC
7.        Sarah Allan, LLB/JD | BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS | Vancouver, BC
8.        Paul Amar, PhD | University of California | Santa Barbara, CA
9.        Solanna Anderson, MA | BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS | Vancouver, BC
10.        Elena Argento, MPH | BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS | Vancouver, BC
11.        Robert Argue, PhD | Professor Emeritus, Ryerson University | Sudbury, ON
12.        Chris Atchison, MA | University of Victoria | Vancouver, BC
13.        Cheryl Auger, MA, PhD (c) | Political Science Department, University of Toronto | Toronto, ON
14.        Jacenta Bahri, MA
15.        Brook Baker, JD | Northeastern University School of Law | Boston, MA
16.        Natasha Bakht, LLM | University of Ottawa | Ottawa, ON
17.        Gillian Balfour, PhD | Trent University | Peterborough, ON
18.        Nandinee Bandyopadhyay, MA
19.        Stefan Baral, MD | Centre for Public Health and Human Rights | Toronto, ON
20.        Julie Bates, MSc | Urban Realists Planning & Occupational Health & Safety Consultants | Sydney, AU
21.        Katharine Bausch, MA | Trent University | Toronto, ON
22.        Ahmed Bayoumi, MD, FRCPC | Toronto, ON
23.        Calum Bennachie, PhD | New Zealand Prostitute’s Collective | Wellington, NZ
24.        Darcie Bennett, PhD | Pivot Legal Society | Vancouver, BC
25.        Cecilia Benoit, PhD | University of Victoria | Victoria, BC
26.        Benjamin Berger, JSD | Osgoode Hall Law School | Toronto, ON
27.        Rachel Berger, PhD | Concordia University | Montreal, QC
28.        Elizabeth Bernstein, PhD | Barnard College | New York, NY
29.        Manjima Bhattacharjya, PhD | Mumbai, Maharashtra
30.        Steven Bittle, PhD | University of Ottawa | Ottawa, ON
31.        Gary Bloch, MD | University of Toronto | Toronto, ON
32.        John Boan, PhD | University of Regina | Regina, SK
33.        Mandy Bonisteel, RN, OMC | George Brown College | Toronto, ON
34.        Colin Bonnycastle, MSW | University of Manitoba | Thompson, ON
35.        Suzanne Bouclin, PhD | University of Ottawa | Ottawa, ON
36.        Pierre Boulos, PhD | University of Windsor | Windsor, ON
37.        Raven Bowen, MA | University of British Columbia | Vancouver, BC
38.        Jason Boyd, PhD | Ryerson University | Toronto, ON
39.        Mark Boyd, MD | University of New South Wales | Sydney, AU
40.        Neil Boyd, LLM | Professor, School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University | Vancouver, BC
41.        Borce Bozhinov, MD | STAR-STAR | Skopje, Macedonia
42.        Ella Bradley, BSW | University of Windsor | Chatham, ON
43.        Suzanne Brissette, MD | Centre hospitalier de l’université de Montréal | Montreal, QC
44.        Deborah Brock, PhD | Associate Professor, York University | Toronto, ON
45.        Chris Bruckert, PhD | Associate Professor, Department of Criminology, University of Ottawa | Ottawa, ON
46.        Zabrina Brumme, PhD | Simon Fraser University | Vancouver, BC
47.        Laurence Brunet, MSc | McGill University | Montreal, QC
48.        Chloe Brushwood Rose, PhD | Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, York University | Toronto, ON
49.        Licia Brussa, PhD | TAMPEP International Foundation | Amsterdam, Netherlands
50.        Katherine Burress, RN | Casey House | Toronto, ON
51.        Karen Busby, JD, LLM | Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba | Winnipeg, MB
52.        Denton Callander, PhD | University of New South Wales | Sydney, AU
53.        Kenneth Camargo, MD, PhD | Rio de Janeiro State University | Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
54.        Thais Camargo, MSc
55.        Deanna Campbell, MA, JD (c) | Vancouver, BC
56.        Anna Carastathis, PhD | California State University Los Angeles | Los Angeles, CA
57.        John Carlsleym MD, CM, MSc, CCFP, FRCPC | University of British Columbia | Vancouver, BC
58.        Sarah Carlsley, MSc | Toronto, ON
59.        Marie-Eve Carrier-Moisan, PhD | Carleton University | Ottawa, ON
60.        Patrizia Carrieri, PhD | INSERM | Marseille, France
61.        Claire Carter, PhD | University of Regina | Regina, SK
62.        Connie Carter, PhD | Canadian Drug Policy Coalition | Victoria, BC
63.        Sheila Cavanagh, PhD | York University | Toronto, ON
64.        Helen Cerigo, MSc | Toronto, ON
65.        Yao Chi Hang, MA | Chinese University of Hong Kong | Hong Kong, China
66.        Alexandra Choby, PhD | University of Alberta | Edmonton, AB
67.        Sandra Ko Hon Chu, LLM | Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network | Toronto, ON
68.        Alison Clancey, MSW | Vancouver, BC
69.        Deborah Clipperton, MA, CP | York University | Toronto, ON
70.        Claudia Coeli, MD, PhD | Universidade Federal de Rio de Janeiro | Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
71.        Marisa Collins, MD, MDSc, CCFP, FCFP | Pemberton, BC
72.        Jason Congdon, MSc | School of Communication, Simon Fraser University | Vancouver, BC
73.        Sandra Connely, MSc | Niagara Falls, ON
74.        Bruno Cornellier, PhD | University of Winnipeg | Winnipeg, MB
75.        Sonia Correa, MSc | Abai/ SPW | Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
76.        Patrice Corriveau, PhD | University of Ottawa | Ottawa, ON
77.        Anna-Louise Crago, PhD (c) | Trudeau Scholar, University of Toronto | Toronto, ON
78.        Marion Crook, PhD | Gibsons, BC
79.        Joanne Csete, PhD, MPH | Columbia University | London, UK
80.        Anne Dagenais Guertin, MD | Gatineau, QC
81.        Isolde Daiski, Ed.D | Toronto, ON
82.        Darcy Dalgaard, M.Ed | Victoria, BC
83.        Amber Dean, PhD | McMaster University | Hamilton, ON
84.        Kathleen Deering, PhD | BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS | Vancouver, BC
85.        Sonja Dolinsek, MA | Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin | Berlin, Germany
86.        Basil Donovan, MD | Sydney Hospital | Sydney, AU
87.        Liza Doyle, MPH | University of New South Wales | Sydney, AU
88.        Putu Duff, MSc, PhD (c) | BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS | Vancouver, BC
89.        Richard Elliot, LLM | Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network | Toronto, ON
90.        Deanna England, MA, BA (Hons.) | University of Winnipeg | Winnipeg, MB
91.        Danya Fast, PhD | BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS | Vancouver, BC
92.        Maritza Felices-Luna, PhD | University of Ottawa | Ottawa, ON
93.        Shawna Ferris, PhD | University of Manitoba | Winnipeg, MB
94.        Thomas Fleming, PhD | Professor of Criminology | Wilfred Laurier University | Toronto, ON
95.        Anna Forbes, MSS | Kensington, MD
96.        Juliana Francis, MSc | Movimiento de Mujeres Feministas | Managua, Nicaragua
97.        Margot Francis, PhD | Brock University | Toronto, ON
98.        Jennifer Fraser, PhD | Ryerson University | Toronto, ON
99.        May Friendman, PhD | Ryerson University | Toronto, ON
100.        Caspar Friesen, BSc, MD | University of British Columbia | Victoria, BC
101.        Robert Gaucher, PhD | University of Ottawa | Ottawa, ON
102.        Mary Gavan, PhD | Vancouver, BC
103.        Leah George, MD, MSc | Calgary, AB
104.        Andree Germain, MSW | University of Ottawa | Ottawa, ON
105.        Mark Gilbert, MD, MHSc | University of British Columbia | Vancouver, BC
106.        Fiona Gold, RN | BC Centre for Disease Control | Vancouver, BC
107.        Shira Goldenberg, PhD | University of British Columbia | Vancouver, BC
108.        Tonantzin Goncalves, PhD | UNISINOS | Porto Alegra, Brazil
109.        Todd Gordon, PhD | Society, Culture and Environment, Laurier University Brantford | Toronto, ON
110.        Kelly Gorkoff, PhD | University of Winnipeg | Winnipeg, MB
111.        Andrew Gray, MD | McGill University | Montreal, QC
112.        Devon Grayson, MLIS | Vancouver, BC
113.        Pauline Greenhill, PhD | University of Winnipeg | Winnipeg, MB
114.        Silvia Guillemi, MD | BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS | Vancouver, BC
115.        Gordon Guyatt, MD, MSc | McMaster University | Dundas, ON
116.        Devon Haag, MSc | Vancouver, BC
117.        Thomas Haig, PhD | Université du Québec à Montréal | Montreal, QC
118.        Helga Hallgrimsdottir, PhD | University of Victoria | Victoria, BC
119.        Julie Ham, MSW, PhD (c) | Monash University, Melbourne AU
120.        Stacey Hannem, PhD | Department of Criminology, Wilfred Laurier University | Branford, ON
121.        Ross Harvey, FMP | Mission, BC
122.        Ashley Heaslip, MD
123.        Robert Heynen, PhD | Department of Communications Studies, York University | Toronto, ON
124.        Heidi Hoefinger, PhD | John Jay College, City University of New York | New York, NY
125.        Robert Hogg, PhD | Simon Fraser University / BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS | Vancouver, BC
126.        Kirby Huminuik, PhD (c) | Vancouver, BC
127.        Sarah Hunt, PhD | Camosun College | Victoria, BC
128.        Mary Ives, RN, MHS | Fraser Health Authority | Chilliwack, BC
129.        Shahnaz Islamova, MSc | Tais Plus NGO | Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan
130.        Mikael Jansson, PhD | University of Victoria | Victoria, BC
131.        Leslie Jeffrey, PhD | University of New Brunswick St. John | Saint John, NB
132.        Bryan Jones, PhD | Simon Fraser University | Vancouver, BC
133.        Darlene Juschka, PhD | University of Regina | Regina, SK
134.        Angela Kaida, PhD | Simon Fraser University | Vancouver, BC
135.        Lara Karaian, PhD | Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Carleton University | Pakenham, ON
136.        Mohammad Karamouzian, MSc | University of British Columbia | Vancouver, BC
137.        Lisa Kelly, JD, JSD (c) | Harvard Law School | Vancouver, BC
138.        Kamala Kempadoo, PhD | Professor, York University | Toronto, ON
139.        Perry Kendall, MD | Victoria, BC
140.        Lisa Kerr, JD, LLM, JSD (c) | New York University | Vancouver, BC
141.        Thomas Kerr, PhD | BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS/ University of British Columbia | Vancouver, BC
142.        Ummni Khan, JD, MA, LLM, SJD | Carleton University | Ottawa, ON
143.        Julie Kille, BScN, RN | Vancouver, BC
144.        Alexandra King, MD | Vancouver, BC
145.        Malcolm King, PhD | Simon Fraser University | Vancouver, BC
146.        Gary Kinsman, PhD | Department of Sociology, Laurentian University | Sudbury, ON
147.        Mieke Koehoorn, PhD | Vancouver, BC
148.        Steven Kohm, PhD | University of Winnipeg | Winnipeg, MB
149.        Kat Kolar, PhD (c) | University of Toronto | Toronto, ON
150.        Rodney Knight, MSc, PhD (c) | University of British Columbia | Vancouver, BC
151.        Andrea Krusi, MSc | BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS | Vancouver, BC
152.        Marc Lafrance, PhD | Concordia University | Montreal, QC
153.        Tammy Landau, PhD | Ryerson University | Toronto, ON
154.        Jeffrey Langer, MA | Laurentian University | Sudbury, ON
155.        Rosanna Langer, PhD | Laurentian University | Sudbury, ON
156.        Jennifer Lavoie, PhD | Wilfred Laurier University | Brantford, ON
157.        Stephanie Law, MJ | McGill University | Montreal, QC
158.        Tuulia Law, MA | University of Ottawa | Ottawa, ON
159.        Robert Leckey, PhD | McGill University | Montreal, QC
160.        Cory Legassic, MA | Dawson College | Montreal, QC
161.        Lucie Lemonde, PhD | Université du Québec à Montréal | Montreal, QC
162.        Annalee Lepp, PhD| Chair, Department of Women’s Studies, University of Victoria/ Director, GAATW Canada | Victoria, BC
163.        Jacqueline Lewis, PhD | University of Windsor | Windsor, ON
164.        Katherine Lippel, LLL, LLM | Canada Research Chair on Occupaional Health and Safety Law | Montreal, QC
165.        Abby Lippman, PhD | McGill University | Montreal, QC
166.        Mona Loufty, MD, FRCPC, MPH | Women’s College Research Institute; Associate Professor, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto | Toronto, ON
167.        John Lowman, PhD | Simon Fraser University | West Vancouver, BC
168.        Tara Lyons, PhD | University of British Columbia | Vancouver, BC
169.        Gayle MacDonald, PhD | St. Thomas University | Fredericton, NB
170.        Josephine MacIntosh, PhD | University of Victoria | Victoria, BC
171.        Shoshana Magnet, PhD | University of Ottawa | Ottawa, ON
172.        Janet Maher, PhD | Toronto, ON
173.        Lisa Maher, PhD | Kirby Institute for Infection and Immunity/ University of New South Wales | Sydney, AU
174.        Kristina Mahnicheva, MD | Tais Plus NGO | Dushanbe, Tajikistan
175.        Olga Marques, PhD | University of Ontario Institute of Technology | Oshawa, ON
176.        Stephanie Marsan, MD | Université de Montréal | Montreal, QC
177.        Brandon Marshall, PhD | Brown University | Providence, RI
178.        Jessica Martin, MA | York University | Toronto, ON
179.        Corinne Mason, PhD | Brandon University | Brandon, MB
180.        Bradley Mathers, MBChB, MD | Sydney, AU
181.        Eleanor Maticka-Tyndale, PhD | University of Windsor | Windsor, ON
182.        Jennifer Matthews, MSc | BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS | Vancouver, BC
183.        Sergio Maulen, MD | Buenos Aires, Argentina
184.        Ruth McCarrell, RN | Providence Health Care | North Vancouver, BC
185.        Bill McCarthy, PhD | Professor, Department Chair, Department of Sociology, University of California Davis | Davis, CA
186.        William McCready, MD | Thunder Bay, ON
187.        Drew McDowell, MA, PhD (c) | University of Calgary | Calgary, AB
188.        Nicole McFadyen, PhD (c) | Toronto, ON
189.        Helen Meekosha, MA | University of New South Wales | Sydney, AU
190.        Nengeh Maria Mensah, PhD | Professeure, École de travail social, Université du Québec à Montréal | Montreal, QC
191.        Emily van der Meulen, PhD | Department of Criminology, Ryerson University | Toronto, ON
192.        Erin Michalak, PhD | Vancouver, BC
193.        Esther Miedema, PhD | Amsterdam, Netherlands
194.        Robin Milhausen, PhD | University of Guelph | Guelph, ON
195.        Cari Miller, PhD | Simon Fraser University | Vancouver, BC
196.        M-J Milloy, PhD | University of British Columbia | Vancouver, BC
197.        Julio Montaner, MD, FRCPC | Professor, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia; Director, BC Centre of Excellence in HIV/AIDS; Past President, International AIDS Society | Vancouver, BC
198.        Melissa Munn, PhD | Coldstream, BC
199.        Michelle Munro, MSc | Agrteam Canada | Ottawa, ON
200.        Laura Murray, MHS | Columbia University | Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
201.        Viviane Namaste, PhD | Simone de Beauvoir Institute, Concordia University | Montreal, QC
202.        Vrinda Narain, DCL | McGill University | Montreal, QC
203.        Ariel Nesbitt, MPH | Oak Tree Clinic Research | Vancouver, BC
204.        Ruth Neustifter, PhD, RMFT | University of Guelph | Guelph, ON
205.        Zoe Newman, PhD | Toronto, ON
206.        Trent Newmeyer, PhD | Brock University | Toronto, ON
207.        N. Nicole Nussbaum, LLB | London, ON
208.        Nadia O’Brien, MPH | Université de Montréal | Montreal, QC
209.        Tamara O’Doherty, MA, JD | Simon Fraser University | Langley, BC
210.        Marcia Oliver, PhD | Wilfred Laurier University | Toronto, ON
211.        Maggie O’Neill, PhD | Professor, Durham University | Durham, UK
212.        Treena Orchard, PhD | University of Western Ontario | London, ON
213.        Michelle Owen, PhD
214.        Katrina Pacey, LLB, MA | Pivot Legal Society | Vancouver, BC
215.        Charles-Maxime Panaccio, SJD | Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa | Ottawa, ON
216.        Colette Parent, PhD | Université d’Ottawa | Gatineau, QC
217.        San Patten, MSc | Mount Allison University | Halifax, NS
218.        Kathryn Payne, MA | George Brown College | Toronto, ON
219.        Monika Penner, M.Ed | Edmonton, AB
220.        Isabelle Perreault, PhD | University of Ottawa | Ottawa, ON
221.        Heather Peters, PhD | Quesnel, BC
222.        Justin Piché PhD | University of Ottawa | Ottawa, ON
223.        Phillip Pilon, MA | York University | Toronto, ON
224.        Catherine Pirkle, PhD | Université Laval | Québec, QC
225.        Nancy Pollak, MALS | Langara College | Vancouver, BC
226.        Susan Price, RSW
227.        Rebecca Raby, PhD | Brock University | St. Catharines, ON
228.        Momin Rahman, PhD | Department of Sociology, Trent University | Peterborough, ON
229.        Genevieve Rail, PhD | Simone de Beauvoir Institute, Concordia University | Montreal, QC
230.        Rajive Rajan, MD
231.        Frances Ravensbergen, PhD | QC
232.        Cheryl Reed-Elder, PhD
233.        Alexandra Regier, MA | Vancouver, BC
234.        William Reimer, PhD | Concordia University | Laval, QC
235.        Dan Reist, MTh | University of Victoria | Mission, BC
236.        Jamie Reschny, PhD (c) | University of Northern British Columbia | Prince George, BC
237.        Lindsey Richardson, D.Phil | BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS | Vancouver, BC
238.        Megan Rivers-Moore, PhD | Carleton University | Ottawa, ON
239.        Dominique Robert, PhD | University of Ottawa | Ottawa, ON
240.        Pascale Robitaille, MA | Monteal, QC
241.        Annika W. Rodriguez, M.Phil | International Community Health| Oslo, Norway
242.        Becki Ross, PhD | University of British Columbia | Vancouver, BC
243.        Eric Roth, PhD | University of Victoria | Victoria, BC
244.        Sean Rourke, PhD | University of Toronto | Toronto, ON
245.        Perrine Roux, PhD | INSERM | Marseille, France
246.        Melanie Rusch, PhD | Island Health | Victoria, BC
247.        Trish Salah, PhD | Assistant Professor, Department of Women’s and Gender Studies, University of Winnipeg | Winnipeg, MB
248.        Anne Salomon, PhD | Simon Fraser University | Vancouver, BC
249.        Joan Sangster, PhD | Trent University | Peterborough, ON
250.        Ginetta Salvalaggio, MD, MSc
251.        Alejandra Sarda-Chandiramani, MD | Mama Cash | Buenos Aires, Argentina
252.        Cristine Sardina, MSJ | Desiree Alliance | Tucson, AZ
253.        Michael Schwandt, MD, MPH | University of Saskatchewan | Saskatoon, SK
254.        Jamie Scott, MD, PhD | Simon Fraser University | Port Moody, BC
255.        Javier Segura del Pozo, MD | Madrid City Council | Madrid, Spain
256.        Kate Shannon, PhD, MPH | Associate Professor of Medicine, University of British Columbia; Director, Gender and Sexual Health Initiative, BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS | Vancouver, BC
257.        Frances Shaver, PhD | Professor, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Concordia University | Montreal, QC
258.        Alexis Shotwell, PhD | Carleton University | Ottawa, ON
259.        Jean Shoveller, PhD | University of British Columbia | Vancouver, BC
260.        Eric Shragge, PhD | Concordia University (retired) | Montreal, QC
261.        Jacob Siegel, MPH | University of British Columbia | Vancouver, BC
262.        Reed Siemieniuk, MD | Medical Reform Group | Toronto, ON
263.        Joel Simpson, PMP, LLM | Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination (SASOD) | Georgetown, Guyana
264.        Paul Simpson, PhD | Kirby Institute for Infection and Immunity/ University of New South Wales | Sydney, AU
265.        Bruno Spire, MD, PhD | INSERM & AIDES | Marseille, France
266.        Malcolm Steinberg, MD | Simon Fraser University | Vancouver, BC
267.        Kyle Stevens, MD | Kelly Ave Medical Cllinic | Summerland, BC
268.        Steffanie Strathdee, PhD | Carlsbad, CA
269.        Marie-Eve Sylvestre, PhD | Faculté de droit, Université d’Ottawa| Ottawa, ON
270.        Alison Symington, LLM | Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network | Toronto, ON
271.        Jason T., MSc | Toronto, ON
272.        Marliss Taylor, RN | Streetworks | Tofield, AB
273.        Sophie Thériault, PhD | Faculté de droit – Université d’Ottawa | Ottawa, ON
274.        Athena Thiessen, MFA | Winnipeg, MB
275.        Gerald Thomas, PhD | Centre for Addictions Research of British Columbia | Summerland, BC
276.        Heidi Thomas, RN, BScN | H’ulh-etun Health Society | Duncan, BC
277.        Sarah Thompson, PhD | Department of Criminology, Ryerson University | Toronto, ON
278.        Kimberly Thomson, MA | University of British Columbia | Vancouver, BC
279.        Ryan Thoreson, D.Phil | Yale Law School | New Haven, CT
280.        Jim Thorsteinson, MD | North Vancouver, BC
281.        Meaghan Thumath, RN, MPH | University of British Columbia School of Nursing | Vancouver, BC
282.        Louise Toupin, PhD | Université du Québec à Montréal | Montreal, QC
283.        Steven Tufts, PhD | Toronto, ON
284.        Laura Track, LLB | Vancouver, BC
285.        Francine Tremblay, PhD | Concordia University | Deux-Montagnes, QC
286.        Kathryn Trevenen, PhD | University of Ottawa | Ottawa, ON
287.        Mark Tyndall, MD | University of Ottawa | Ottawa, ON
288.        Mariana Valverde, PhD | University of Toronto | Toronto, ON
289.        Kim Varma, PhD | Ryerson University | Toronto, ON
290.        Tamara Vukov, PhD | Université de Montréal | Montreal, QC
291.        Stephanie Wahab, PhD | Best Practices Policy Project | Portland, OR
292.        Pamela Walker, PhD | Carleton University | Ottawa, ON
293.        Kai Wang, MD | Toronto, ON
294.        Grant Wardell-Johnson, BEc, LLB, CTA | Sydney, AU
295.        Thomas Waugh, PhD | Program in Sexuality, Concordia University | Montreal, QC
296.        Kevin Wilson, BA (Hons.), MSc. (c) | Dalhousie University | Halifax, NS
297.        Yasmin Winsor, MScN | BC Centre for Disease Control | Vancouver, BC
298.        Teresa Whitaker, PhD | Sex Workers’ Alliance Ireland | Dublin, Ireland
299.        Melissa Autumn White, PhD | UBC Okanagan | Kelowna, BC
300.        Stephen Whittle, LLB, MA, PhD | Manchester Metropolitan University | Stockport, England
301.        Robert Winston, MD, FRCPC, FACP | BC Cancer Agency | Surrey, BC
302.        Peter Woods | Emeritus Mayor | Patron Local Government New South Wales | Sydney, AU
303.        Kristopher Woofter, PhD (c) | Concordia University/ Dawson College | Montreal, QC
304.        Sean Yaphe, MPH | McGill University | Montreal, QC
305.        Alan Young, LLM | Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School | Toronto, ON
306.        Kate Zinszer, MSc | Montreal, QC

New Prostitution Laws May Be Coming Soon

Posted on by
Reply

I believe that the government has the information it needs to recognize that the Nordic approach will replicate the harms of the laws just struck down and won’t even be legal in itself. They also do not want to have the burden of telling us what we cannot do as consenting adults in private. So two things. If they do bring the Nordic model, meaning say they are targeting customers and associates of sex workers, it means they are just kicking the can down the road again, so they can say the courts forced them to decriminalize sex work. If they don’t, they will finally in effect decriminalize it, and just bring in laws targeting the negative aspects of the sex trade such as human trafficking. Laws like that are already there, so it means they say they will enforce existing laws for a change, or actually do something to protect women. Either way, we have won, will win and there is no going backwards. When the new law comes out, I will make sure I read it and ask what other informed observers think of it before I comment publicly. That is something those opposed to our challenge should consider trying some time.

The Barrage Against the Nordic Approach

Posted on by
Reply

I have seen and been told that there has been a constant stream of articles saying the government should not criminalize the purchase of sex or being a pimp. It appears that a couple of items in favour of that approach, such as put forward by Member of Parliament Joy Smith, have been demolished. Other articles have revealed how police in several areas of Canada are cooperating in treating the sex trade, whatever that is, just like any other business. So the question going forward is who gets hurt. If Mr. Harper brings in new laws, instead of basically enforcing remaining laws for a change, organized crime and bad pimps and so forth will prosper and celebrate. If he does what we have advocated, women will be safer and better off in every respect. If he finds the idea of women being paid for sex acts (which he has yet to define) wrong, he should look at the booming businesses of strip clubs, massage parlours, dungeons, and escort agencies that have flourished since he came into office. It’s a little late in the game to get up on a high moral horse. I’m up on mine, and I think women should not be legally required to perform sex acts only for free.

It Looks Like They Got It

Posted on by
Reply

I have been getting reports and reading media from all over the country and it is quite clear that there is no consensus among authorities or the public that the purchasers of sex acts, whatever that means, should be targets of any new legislation. Ditto pimps, whatever they are. Instead, there is a consensus that if people are being forced into sex work or want out of it they should have help made available to them. Just like our side has been saying. But let’s not stop there. Let’s have help for our women in uniform who are being sexually harassed and assaulted. I wouldn’t want my daughter in the military or the RCMP. Too much sexual abuse. Let’s have exit strategies and rescues for them as well. We might even want to throw in a rescue program for whistle blowers in the civil service who have been betrayed. Is this beginning to sound like a “Tough on Harper Agenda”?

I Spoke at The Law Union of Ontario – Part 4 of 4

Posted on by
Reply

This is the fourth of four instalments.

Professor Young remained active for me, and when I reopened in downtown Toronto just after my conviction he asked the police if they had any objection to what I was doing, which was identical to Thornhill – which resulted in a massive raid and trial. I was open 4 years. No raid, no trial.

Another lawyer, Pierre Cloutier, advised me on and assisted me in the handling of the administrative matters of my business, like registration and minute books and so forth.

Just after I closed Professor Young told me he was considering challenging the constitutionality of some of the prostitution laws in court and wanted me to be one of the plaintiffs. Want to know what is involved in a Charter challenge? Try it some time. Half a million dollars for starters. Add to that tons of volunteer legal time. The work involved with the experts. Try 3 years of hearings and related preparation. Try dealing with government lawyers who do not hesitate to offer crap as evidence and argument. If you don’t believe it was crap ask Judge Himel and the Supreme Court. Try to deal with a government that orders their lawyers to make it go away by any means necessary and then orders them to appeal, when there are no grounds to appeal, simply to make the issue go away. A government that has no regard for Charter challenges.

Then try dealing with a portion of the media who in one breath points to the downsides of the sex trade, whatever that is, while turning a blind eye to the finding of the courts that the very laws they are fighting to retain are largely the cause of those evils. Try dealing with commentators who bring in obscure new studies or reports, not tested in court, to attack legalization of the sex trade, while ignoring the findings of a virtual 3 year public inquiry, with evidence tested in court, that resulted in the Himel decision and what it had to say about other countries. Barbara Kay and Margaret Wente are two recent examples of such cherry pickers who don’t even say in their columns if they have even read the decision. Rosie DiManno said “read the damn decision”, out of frustration with such lousy journalism.

It was never our intent to work our way to the Supreme Court. If Mr. Harper and his justice ministers were doing their jobs, they would have said that even if Judge Himel was partly right the laws needed changing, and not defending. They had the choice of acting all along. But they put themselves first.

In 2011 I published my memoirs, where I tell all about my legal battles. I got help from, you guessed it, a lawyer. Sender Herschorn and his staff were wonderful in ensuring I was within the law in writing the book, in what I said in the book and in advising me on drafts. He wrote to those mentioned in the drafts and sent them copies and made sure that no one had grounds to sue me. He also helped me with the writing and was encouraging throughout. He assisted me in private legal matters as well.

So you see, there is a great deal that lawyers can do for their clients in the sex trade, or those considering entering it, other that just react to charges or arrests. Lawyers can act proactively. Chanelle and Karen are going to talk about that, and believe me, they know their stuff and I am so grateful to share this time with them tonight because what they have to tell you is very important. 

I want to conclude by sharing just one last thing about lawyers with you. It’s the same lousy joke I tell whenever I speak to audiences of legal professionals or law students. The one good thing about the joke is that it’s so bad it ensures I have to shut up and sit down immediately. Here’s the joke.

Question: What’s the difference between a dominatrix and a woman lawyer?

Answer: The dom returns phone calls.

Thank you all very much.